When it comes to the topic of embryonic stem cell research, most individuals will readily agree that it has provided new information into how the human body functions and, as a result, has the potential to lead to new medical treatments. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the issue of whether or not the embryos themselves should be recognized as living human beings.  Embryonic stem cells are cells found in embryos that have the potential to transform into any type of cell in the human body. Some people believe embryos become living organisms from the moment they are fertilized, others maintain that embryos should not be considered living because they are not fully developed.  The main point of disagreement here is that the opponents of embryonic stem cell research believe that destruction of the embryo is equivalent to abortion, while supporters believe embryos are just a collection of undifferentiated cells that deserve no moral status.  In terms of embryo research, my own view is that embryos should not be grown solely for the purpose of research, but in cases where existing embryos would be discarded, they should be given to researchers because of their potential value. 

Stem cells are highly unique in the human body because they have the potential to be transformed into any type of cell in the human body.  Stem cells are cells that are not yet specialized and, all specialized cells originate from stem cells.  Specialized cells are cells in the body that have already been transformed into another type of cell, which could potentially be a liver cell, brain cell, skin cell, or any other type of cell.  The body is made up of about 200 different kinds of specialized cells, and the process of specialization is called differentiation and once the differentiation pathway of a stem cell has been decided, it can no longer become another type of cell (Clark).  A stem cell that can become every type of cell in the body is called pluripotent, embryonic stem cells, whereas a stem cell that can become only some types of cells is called multipotent, adult stem cells (Clark). In other words, embryonic stem cells can be transformed into any cell in the human body, while adult stem cells are much more limited in their transformation possibilities.  Stem cells are found in the early embryo, the fetus, placenta, umbilical cord and in many different tissues of the adult body (Clark).  Stem cells can be obtained from cells that come from very early embryos, and then can be grown in a laboratory indefinitely.  Embryonic stem cells are the cells that cause the controversy since this research results in the destruction of an embryo, which some individuals view as taking a life. However, adult stem cells can be harvested without the destruction of any embryos, but their potential benefits are limited in the medical field since they can only transform into a few different cells in the human body (Robertson).   

The practice of growing embryos for the sole purpose of conducting research is highly immoral.  Some individuals believe that females should donate their eggs and wombs to help create embryos for research.  I strongly disagree with this idea because this method of collecting embryos demeans the value of a woman by just using her to make embryos.  Martin Bednar, executive director and research leader at Pfizer, Inc., argues that science becomes a threat to mankind when it puts no value on human life (Bednar).  Adding to Bednar’s argument, I would say that scientists should have the highest respect when it comes to working with embryos, whether or not they are considered human life.  Even though embryos lack the physical characteristics to have the attributes that would classify them as human life, they should still be treated with the highest possible ethical standards when conducting research with them.  The editors of the Scientific American composed an article where they assume that embryos are abandoned by their parents as by-products of conception attempts ("Save Embryonic Stem Cell Research").   With that being said, I would add that I do not believe embryos count as life, but they do deserve more respect than they are sometimes given.  The editors of the Scientific American talk about embryonic stem cells as if they were just trash being discarded.  They deserve a greater amount of respect because if they were implanted in a uterus, then they have the potential to become a fetus.   However, research has shown that embryos used in embryonic stem cell research have a zero percent chance of maturing into human beings.   

One alternative research method that does not involve the use of embryos, is the use of only adult stem cells for research. The use of only adult stem cells in research removes the controversy since adult stem cells can be naturally found in all humans.  Paul Kincade, Scientific Director for the Oklahoma Center, believes that adult stem cells should be researched more extensively and claims that they are just as elastic as embryonic stem cells. However, I would point out that scientists have proven that embryonic stem cells can be transformed into over 200 different types of cells, while adult stem cells can only transform into about 20 (White).  Although I disagree with much that Kincade says, I fully endorse his final conclusion that only using adult stem cells instead of embryonic stems cells will eradicate the moral dilemma that exists in stem cell research. 

 Another method of research that avoids embryonic stem cells uses Induced pluripotential stem cells (iPSC). These cells are created by nuclear reprogramming adult, differentiated somatic cells (Navellier 16).  In other words, scientists turn the adult stem cells back into unspecialized stem cells that are capable of transforming into any type of cell. Chase Navellier, former student at Stanford University, claims that induced pluripotent stem cells are the future of stem cell research, however this idea rests upon the questionable assumption that this type of stem cell has the same potential as an embryonic stem cell.  Therefore, many years of research must be conducted on iPSC’s before scientists can come to the conclusion that they have the same potential as embryonic stem cells.  If iPSCs are ever found to be just as effective as embryonic stem cells, I believe this method is the most viable option that can remove the controversy surrounding embryonic stem cells. Unfortunately, this research could take decades, which means something must be done now to further advance stem cell research.

In the meantime, one solution for ending the controversy surrounding embryonic stem cells that can happen today is to stop growing embryos solely for research purposes.  However, I see nothing wrong with research being conducted on embryos that already exist and are at risk of being destroyed. According to one national study, 41percent of couples who don't want another child are very likely to donate their excess embryos for research, 30 percent are very likely to have them destroyed, and 16 percent are very likely to donate them to another couple (Tomlin).  A woman has every right to freeze or discard her eggs if she does not wish to keep them. Therefore, fertility clinics all over the country have excess embryos that are donated to them because their parents do not want them.  Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, believes embryos that are in excess of the needs of in vitro fertilization should be used for basic biomedical research rather than be destroyed (Pelosi). Adding to that belief, it is scientifically proven that the embryos that are used for in-vitro fertilization are nonviable, which means they are already considered dead as organisms and have no chance of ever becoming a living human even if implanted in a womb. Pelosi’s theory of donation is extremely useful because it sheds light on the difficult problem of whether or not to destroy embryos. If nonviable embryos are used for research, there is a chance that a successful cure or treatment may occur, however nothing of value will come if they are just destroyed. 

Therefore, I believe individuals should evaluate all aspects of the controversy before dismissing embryonic stem cell research as being immoral.  Kristina Hug, Ph.D. student in the Department of Medical Ethics at Lund University, makes a valid point by stating that the donation of embryonic cells from embryos which are no longer alive as organisms could be similarly viewed as the donation of essential organs from cadavers, then individuals could accept the cells for research purposes (Hug 108).  The aim of embryonic stem cell research is to cure diseases and relieve universal suffering.  Individuals must decide whether they value the moral principle of preventing suffering of living humans over the respect they think they must grant to embryos that have no chance of becoming a human.  In my view, this is an easy choice to make since the potential benefits of this research outweighs the negative aspects.  People need to understand that embryos outside of the human body cannot be harmed by being destroyed.  To be harmed means to have an interest or interests defeated. For a being to have an interest, this being must have beliefs, desires, expectations, aims, and purposes (Hug 109).  An embryo is not capable of any of these actions; therefore, invalidating the claim that embryos should be considered life. 

Embryonic stem cells hold unlimited potential for studying and learning about diseases. Human embryonic stem cells can provide new ways of studying diseases by making disease-specific stem cell lines.  These cells may prove an invaluable tool in understanding the progression of diseases, and they may also be useful for testing new drugs to treat that disease (Clark).  In other words, scientists can create stem cell lines for every known disease, and then test many different types of cures until they find one that works.  Scientists have also found a new and efficient way to study embryonic stem cells. For example, Australian researchers Andrew Elefanty and Ed Stanley, based at Monash University in Melbourne, have developed the technology to engineer embryonic stem cells to glow a certain color when genes are switched on or off (Clark). This technology allows researchers to clearly follow the progression of a stem cell as it becomes another cell type, such as a heart cell or liver cell, and then be able to use these cells to better understand the development of diseases.  This is a valuable advancement in embryonic stem cell research because it allows scientists to know exactly how each gene positively or negatively affects the cure to a specific disease. 

Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to create successful treatment options to diseases that doctors believe have no cure. This research leads to a new branch of medical treatment known as regenerative therapy. Embryonic stem cells can replace old or damaged cells, which give doctors the ability to replace failing organs and damaged tissue. Since 2010, the number of human embryonic stem cell clinical trials has increased from 2 to 8 (Bednar).  This is a tremendous increase since the controversy constantly slows the advancement of embryonic stem cell research.  Researchers believe that embryonic stem cell research has the potential to treat Alzheimer’s by replacing the damaged brain cells with new, properly functioning brain cells.  Embryonic stem cells have great potential in the treatment of individuals with nerve damage.  Scientists believe they will one day be able to create new nerve cells that will successfully treat individuals with spinal cord injuries, which means scientists believe they will one day be able to cure paralysis (Clark).  However, embryonic stem cell research can provide more in depth treatments other than just replacing damaged cells.  Scientist believe that one day they will be able to create entire organs that need replacement in the human body (Robertson).  They believe they can create a fully functioning pancreas and then implant it in a person that has diabetes thus, curing that individual of diabetes.  Finally, scientists believe embryonic stem cell research holds the cure for cancer, but this treatment is still many years away.

Embryos should not be grown solely for the purpose of conducting research, but if they are collected in another way or are in danger of being destroyed, then I see no problem with scientists using them for research.  Embryonic stem cell research does not come without controversy since it pertains to something having the potential to become a human life however, the moral dilemmas are no longer an obstacle that must be overcome.  Embryos should still be treated with high moral ethics since they have the potential to become a fetus if implanted in a womb.  The vast potential medical benefits associated with embryonic stem cell research should be carefully considered before and individual decides whether or not they believe embryonic stem cell research is moral or immoral.  
